Introduction
In the recent case of Re Victor River Ltd [2021] HKCFI 886, which concerns the winding-up of a foreign company, the Court of First Instance applied the long-developed three core requirements which must be satisfied before exercising discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. In particular, the Court discussed how the holding of shares in a delisted company may impact on the Court’s consideration of the three core requirements.
Background
In ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) v Michael Thomas Walton & anor,[1] the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the purpose for which public examination summons and production of documents can be ordered.
In the US distressed market, liability management has emerged as an effective and widely accepted tool to increase liquidity, restructure debts and extend a borrower’s runway to help it avoid insolvency. However, although not unheard of, it is yet to achieve the same prevalence in Europe, where documents are still catching up to the level of flexibility seen in the US, and different capital structures and legal regimes raise different issues.
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has denied leave to appeal in the proceedings of Nemaska Lithium Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, Nemaska) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In November 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) dismissed leave applications from the decision of the Superior Court of Québec (SCQ). In this decision, the SCQ granted, for the first time after a contested hearing, a “reverse vesting order” (RVO).
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has confirmed that monetary penalties and disgorgement orders from regulatory proceedings are exempt from a bankruptcy discharge. In 2015, the British Columbia Securities Commission ordered Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Poonian to pay more than $19 million in penalties and disgorgement after the commission found that the pair had engaged in market manipulation. In 2018, the Poonians sought a discharge from bankruptcy absolving them of their debts.
The recent decision of Justice B.E.
Lenders often require their borrowers to be “special purpose entities” in real estate transactions. This is a way that lenders can mitigate their bankruptcy risk in the event that the borrower or any of its parent entities file for bankruptcy. In addition, since most real estate financing is non-recourse, lenders require that the borrower is a separate, special purpose entity so that no other property or business will impact the property which is the subject of the underlying loan.
WWRT Limited v Tyshchenko & Tyshchenko [2021] EWHC 939 (Ch)
Judgment date: 21 April 2021 (Bacon J)
Overview
When used correctly, pre-pack administrations can be an effective means of creating an opportunity for the rescue of an insolvent business. However, concerns are regularly expressed about the lack of transparency in the sale process and the potential for poor outcomes for unsecured creditors, particularly where a disposal involves connected parties. These concerns have been exacerbated by some unfavourable media reports about a limited number of high-profile cases, and the speed at which transactions are often required to take place in order to preserve value and jobs.